[XogGyux]

We would save a lot of time if you answered the questions instead of evading them and trying to make silly snipes.

You seem to have a problem with logic. You first ask the question then I answer it. I know I am very smart but generally I cannot guess the question before you ask it. So please stop beating it around the bush and ask.

After calling the religious people pedophiles, you are now calling them Nazi's worthy of elimination, all to dehumanise them while arguing that they should be eliminated.

The hypocrisy is quite astonishing.

Are you going to get to a point anytime soon? I am not dehumanizing anyone, they are doing that themselves. There is nothing of humanity left on extremists ISIS, humanity is rapidly fading from fundamentalist christians as well and slowly (but steadily) fading from those who are not fundamentalist but defend/perpetuate the backwards mentality of the institution.

I am defending the right of free speech of religious people and their right to exist.

First and foremost, because you seem to like to jump to conclusion. Nobody is arguing in favor of killing religious people, that is upwards of 5 billion people, which is the vast population of the world so stop it with the drama.
Second. Free speech I could not care less. Let them say whatever they want to say. You are not defending free speech, you are defending their actions which is not the same. Gender discrimination is not free speech, homophobia and homosexual discrimination is no free speech, coercing and threatening women and doctors who perform abortion is not free speech, genital mutilation is no free speech, terrorist attacks are not free speech, women and children abuse, rape and killing is not free speech. It is very nice you trying to hyperbolize what I say to make it sound unreasonable but this is what you are defending, yet you don't want me to judge you by the morals of those who you are defending.

I am certainly calling people who want to eliminate other people immoral, people such as yourself.

Yeah good try. I said eliminate religion, or at the very least its power to influence non-believers. I never said kill people. Whats wrong with you? Eliminate coal is not the same as killing coal miners.

So you accept that your argument to eliminate them was false?

You think?

[XogGyux]

They're less common but they do exist. Dan Barker, for example, has explicitly made the claim that "There is no God" throughout many of his debates.

Then that case it is an ATHEIST + GNOSTIC. Atheist alone does not imply "there is no god" you also have to be gnostic for that (assertion knowing there is no god). However, be wary that people sometime make radical claims just because they are more polarizing and great to get some public eyes on a book or a movie/documental/etc. He might very well have that stance, but he might be also agnostic/atheist and used the claim that he does not necessarily believe for ratings.

[noemon]

You seem to have a problem with logic. You first ask the question then I answer it. I know I am very smart but generally I cannot guess the question before you ask it. So please stop beating it around the bush and ask.

I ask you a question, you refuse to reply, I ask you again, you refuse to reply, I ask you the third time and you finally reply, then you go on whinging.

Are you going to get to a point anytime soon? I am not dehumanizing anyone, they are doing that themselves. There is nothing of humanity left on extremists ISIS, humanity is rapidly fading from fundamentalist christians as well.

Says the man who explicitly wrote that he wants to eliminate them.

First and foremost, because you seem to like to jump to conclusion. Nobody is arguing in favor of killing religious people, that is upwards of 5 billion people, which is the vast population of the world so stop it with the drama.

We have been talking about the influence of religious people in our countries and our legal systems, not the entire religious population. You explicitly wrote that the religious people in your country should be eliminated so that they do not influence politics & law. How do you reconcile that position?

Second. Free speech I could not care less.

Clearly, unreasonable people have an issue with free-speech because it ridicules them in public.

You are not defending free speech, you are defending their actions which is not the same. Gender discrimination is not free speech, homophobia and homosexual discrimination is no free speech, coercing and threatening women and doctors who perform abortion is not free speech, genital mutilation is no free speech, terrorist attacks are not free speech, women and children abuse, rape and killing is not free speech. It is very nice you trying to hyperbolize what I say to make it sound unreasonable but this is what you are defending, yet you don't want me to judge you by the morals of those who you are defending.

Aside from projecting whatever evil your brain can think of to placate your ridiculous proposals, I can easily trash this by pointing out secular Juche, nazi and communist atrocities. As we have already seen, God/religion is not responsible for the evil in the world but human factionalism as well as other reasons. Your circles are boring. Stick to the point and defend your own statements instead of trying to create strawmen.

You think?

You are not answering, are you admitting that this entire paragraph in reply to my question was an error in your judgement:

I am not seeing any religious folk in here that wants to do any of that stuff, I am seeing you explicitly stating that you want to get rid of religious folk.

Yeah, because they want to get rid of everyone that is not like them? How about they just stay in their magical house and pray to their invisible friend and leave the rest of humanity in peace? Oh no they need to preach their shit back and forth and attempt to control everything, suicide bomb the rest of us, stone/abuse women, indoctrinate children, mutilate children. By your logic those who wanted to eliminate nazi germany were dictators...

You are plainly stating that you want to get rid of religious folk by eliminating them as villains on a similar fashion that Nazi Germany was eliminated which was through a brutal persecution by the occupying forces, you are also trying to justify that too.

[XogGyux]

I ask you a question, you refuse to reply, I ask you again, you refuse to reply, I ask you the third time and you finally reply, then you go on whinging.



Says the man who explicitly wrote that he wants to eliminate them.



We have been talking about the influence of religious people in our countries and our legal systems, not the entire religious population. You explicitly wrote that the religious people in your country should be eliminated so that they do not influence politics & law. How do you reconcile that position?



Clearly, unreasonable people have an issue with free-speech because it ridicules them in public.



Aside from projecting whatever evil your brain can think of to placate your ridiculous proposals, I can easily trash this by pointing out secular Juche, nazi and communist atrocities. As we have already seen, God/religion is not responsible for the evil in the world but human factionalism as well as other reasons. Your circles are boring. Stick to the point and defend your own statements instead of trying to create strawmen.



You are not answering, are you admitting that this entire paragraph in reply to my question was an error in your judgement:





You are plainly stating that you want to get rid of religious folk by eliminating them as villains on a similar fashion that Nazi Germany was eliminated which was through a brutal persecution by the occupying forces, you are also trying to justify that too.

I refer you to post #14759615 viewtopic.php?p=14759615#p14759615 where I specifically stated:

1.- Ideally getting rid of religion.
2.- Religion stop preaching morals would be a solid start.
3.- Reasonable religious individual knocking instead of constantly justifying the crap out of religious fundamentalist would be a weaker but still significant step forward.
4.- Revert of idiocy preached by religious authorities.
take you pick

To which you replied:

So you want to legitimise the persecution of religious folk and deny it its reason d'etre?

And to which I clarified:

First of all nobody said persecution of religious folk. But given the fact that is the only way religion knows how to deal with those that have views opposed to them I could see how this would be confusing to you.

And I further SPECIFICALLY clarified here:

First and foremost, because you seem to like to jump to conclusion. Nobody is arguing in favor of killing religious people, that is upwards of 5 billion people, which is the vast population of the world so stop it with the drama.

Here:

Yeah good try. I said eliminate religion, or at the very least its power to influence non-believers. I never said kill people. Whats wrong with you? Eliminate coal is not the same as killing coal miners.

And as if all of that was not enough I have repeatedly stated in this thread and other similar threads that my problem is NOT with individuals but with the institution itself. I have said that over and over and over and over and I am getting blue from saying it again. . I cannot reconcile the fact that I have stated my position clearly so many times and that we have had this conversation for over 2 weeks where I have repeatedly said this and you still try to misrepresent me.
So this is obviously a deliberate misrepresentation by your part. Honestly I am not surprised, after defending those institutions that advocate for women/child/homosexual abuse among many other depravities it is hard to imagine you could hold a civilized argument after running out of rational arguments. You have to resort to manipulation and misrepresentation.
So as you can see, for a while now you have been trying to distort my stance. Apparently you ran out of reasonable things to and all you can do is post shit stuff like this:

noemon wrote:
The one quoted.

You are running away from your assertion again, while trying some silly ad-hom.

You were running away from this and now you are running away from your earlier post, I wonder how many times will you assert something and then pretend that you did not while at the same time trying to ad-hom me.

The third time.

We would save a lot of time if you answered the questions instead of evading them and trying to make silly snipes.

ETC and distortion after distortion.
I understand if you ran out of objective, reasonable arguments but you do not have to resort to this kind of stupidity.
Just so you are clear in your deluded brain. This is not open to interpretation like your bible is, this is 100% literal. I do not advocate for any kind of violence or killing of anyone PERIOD. I know your religious values are very "open to interpretation" but mines are not. Religion should be eliminated. Elimination means not having it anymore, it does not mean killing. Elimination means educating backward thinking fucktards that think magic beings are real, and when education fails, educate them again and again and again and fucking again. Elimination means use all possible means to stop them from spreading falsehoods to next generations. Yes these people are the ones teaching creationism in some schools in the US as if it was a fact. It means imposing conditions for trade with countries that support sharia law or human right violations in particular on religion basis. The fact that you have to resort to comparisons with the worse humanity has done in the past (WWII, North Korea, etc) to justify religion as reasonable is a clear testament to how barbaric this institution is.
If you cannot understand this and you have to lower yourself to make false accusations then I feel pity for you.
And no, you are not justified to make this type of accusation. Mostly because I clarified you multiple times during the debate, as exemplified by the quotes I gave you. The deliberate out of context and constant deliberate misrepresentation by yourself is pitiful. So I will pretend this was a misunderstanding for the sake of civility though I suspect you will try to continue to press on this baseless accusation because you ran out of reasonable things to say. Religion kills neurons.

[jakell]

Have viewed his talk now. It's a bit painful because of the poor audio quality combined with the density of ideas addressed, also because he doesn't really broach the fundamental concept that you posted this in response to. I haven't listened to the Q&A yet, presumably his talk was completed at that point as he chose to do so.

FIRSTLY... The overall thrust is not at all helpful, it's about which system is superior and therefore comes over as a pissing contest. I initially though this was a temporary distortion due to his experiences as a Christian, but he comes back to this 'contest' over and over again and so the focus on morality in itself seems to take second place.
One interesting comparison he makes is that so-called secular morality is very dynamic and responds to a rapidly changing world, whereas religious morality is sluggish. The trouble is that something that is so dynamic would have trouble acting as a 'system' and I would posit that one can be too dynamic, to the point of being 'lightweight'. We may be seeing some early results here with Feminism moving to a small intellectual vanguard (Third Wave) and having little to say (or do) about women in Islam for instance, also the pretty recent 'Social Justice Warrior' phenomenon that is largely self-absorbed but cloaks itself in morality.

SECONDLY... it does not address the point you posted this in answer to, about the basis for his (and the Christian) moral system, which is egalitarianism, he has not explained why we should cleave to this, it's sort of assumed
He sort of gets near to this by stating that a fundamental principle does not have to come from outside the system (religious), but can come from inside of it (secular), and that the merits of the principle do not have to come from authority, but from an assessment of outcomes. Fair enough, but in our complex and long-running human experiment, the results are far from 'in' yet, so I would ask "what principles do we use in the meantime?"

FINALLY... As egalitarianism has not been given an intellectual foundation here, we still do not have a secular reason why slavery is bad. Your assertion that the unhappiness of slaves is equivalent to 'harm' is not persuasive, we do not make moves to ensure the happiness of free people do we? We provide physical care in sickness, security and adequate resources and leave them to their own devices.

Perhaps you would like to interact with the Q&A part of the video and get back to me, or describe some point that I may have missed where he addresses these issues (please don't chop this post up into individual sentences when you reply, it's bad manners)

As you wish. But I bet you will have trouble identifying which of your "problems" I am addressing in this form which is not as well structured as the other. But if you prefer it this way so be it.
This is not a personality contest. You don't like to like the guy to appreciate if what he is saying is true/valuable or not. I do not like all of the people that say valuable/true things to me, in fact I do not like most. The people that value truth above all and that are wise/smart tend to not be the most sociable of the bunch. That being said I will address your first real critic which regards about the "speed" of change and robustness of the system. My first argument is that this system might have been "labeled" recently but this is the same kind of algorithm many people (I'd dare to say most people, including religious people) use in their heads to evaluate situations (I think this is true even for religious people, but that after the first evaluation religious people contrast their first impression with whatever religion teaches and they adjust their views, sometimes in opposite direct). So my point is, this is not some kind of new recipe that sociologist cooked in the basement of a laboratory as a plaything idea to maybe implement 2000 years in the future. This is a system most of us already use!, and whole countries even use. So we know this system is robust. Regarding how fast it can move on certain issues, it might seem extremely fast. But that is because you compare it to religious system, which lets face it do not move at all. To the date, divorce (which most of us accept as a normal thing in today's word) is a big NO-NO in catholic church and discouraged in christian (probably punishable by death by islam, at least for the woman). So compared to this sluggish system anything can seem like lightning fast. But the reality is that NEW moral issues come once or twice in a decade. In our lifetimes we might see just a handful or important issues. So I'll argue if the system that we have cannot address these very few changes that we get in a lifetime, then the system is useless, we might as well write what is right and wrong in a paper and call it a day. So I do not agree with this point that you brought. We need a different alternative in part precisely because religious-based moral don't change or do so very slow.
Remember. What we really care is about results. How we get to the results does not really matter. We want to get to good moral decisions/policies. This system offers precisely that.
The reality is that we do not even use egalitarian philosophy to letter even today and in some cases this philosophy leads to "wrong" choices by today's standards. We do not consider "all men/women equal" nor should we. The alcoholic do not get exactly the same priority than the non-alcoholic in a liver transplant list, they need to "clean their act" first. The old and frail do not get the same priority for a heart as the young and athletic. The president's life is generally considered more important... etc. So egalitarianism is not really a 100% reliable (yes it is good but we do not rely blindly on it) so if we can get to the same/better results without it (and arguably we can, as I said, we are for the most part using this system right now) we do not need to keep it as a vestigial organ.
I think you intuitively got to the same answer that I just replied above. Results are whats important. I do think we have results "in." I think method that he described is what most of us do in our heads when we think of something (at least I "officially" know that is what I use even though i did not know this system until a few months ago). I think most people, even religious, go through this in their head and arrive to a preliminary solution, and in the case of religious people they later compare this preliminary solution with whatever they have been taught in church and if its compatible they accept it and if it is not compatible then there are conflicts. I think one of the conflicts we see is when you as many (perhaps even most) religious people if gay people are immoral, in many/most cases they say no but when you ask them if they should get married or if confronted with what the bible says many change their answer.
It might not be persuasive to you because you begin with a ridiculous scenario to begin with. What kind of "well cared (kindly treated) slave" are you talking about, a slave is a slave, you might keep him/her fed, healthy but you are imposing your will on him/her. That is harm, psychologically at the very least, even if you never lay a finger on him/her.

Thought I'd put the original video back in in case someone want to follow this. Regarding 'chopping up', I was just referring to over-atomisation of someone's text, which is why I've referred to sentences (I've come across folks who even break up sentences), paragraphs are ok with me, which is why we instinctively use them (as you did above)

I didn't say I don't like the guy, and it's the technician's fault for the poor sound quality, it just that your video here didn't address what you posted it in response to, it's too much about which system is superior but I expect this from a (recent?) ex-Christian

You're right in that this so-called 'system' has only been labeled recently, religious people have been using it for centuries in conjunction with a religious foundation, they have finessed a basic set of principles with their own observations and common sense, so what you say about religious systems not moving at all is incorrect. Religion can and does address new challenges, it has been doing so through the ages.
The difference is that secularists now want jettison this foundation and claim that they can demonstrate a new and self-evident one from the ground up. Unfortunately the vast majority is built on egalitarianism and secularism cannot argue logically why we should use this, Matt himself jests that it is "because I say so" and leaves it at that. Monarchists (for instance) will be unconvinced by this and will go on to build upon inequality. Waiting for 'results' is a weak principle because it does not address the people who will act decisively in the present, if we had waited for the 'results' of slavery then we would probably still have a ('kinder'?) form of it and then, if some results were actually recognised, people would endlessly contest the interpretation of them.
The conjunction of religion and rational observation/reflection tends to work, religion provides the basic foundation until the results trickle in (if they ever do), even when they are vague, ignored, contested and/or thrown out.

So, to the thrust here.. 'secular morality' alone (and it wants to be alone, ie superior) cannot tell us why slavery is bad because it cannot say why egalitarianism is good and, if it does what it claims to do, it should be able to explain this. The Founding Fathers recognised this by saying "we believe these truths to be self-evident" and left it at that.. not a bad compromise.

[Pants-of-dog]

I suppose the first thing to point out is that it isn't a generalisation. It is a definition of what atheism is.
Neither of the articles, and I'm sure you have read them in depth, contradicts that.

Actually, both articles clearly show that only some atheists have just a lack of belief, while other atheists have different views.

Assuming that all atheists fit your favourite definition, and ignoring all others, is a generalisation.

[jakell]

Xog. Please don't reply to my previous post just yet, I've requested that it is moved to 'God as the Origin of Morality', which is much more apt than this cantankerous one.

[Besoeker]

Actually, both articles clearly show that only some atheists have just a lack of belief, while other atheists have different views.

Assuming that all atheists fit your favourite definition, and ignoring all others, is a generalisation.

Once again, that point was about atheism. You continue to either miss that point or simply don't understand it.

[Pants-of-dog]

And I have explained how that point is not relevant to the generalisation you are making.

Why can't you respond to what I wrote? It is very simple.

[Besoeker]

And I have explained how that point is not relevant to the generalisation you are making.

It is precisely relevant and specific.

Why can't you respond to what I wrote? It is very simple.

I did.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is precisely relevant and specific.

Please explain how. Thank you.

I did.

Not as far as I can tell.

Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

[Besoeker]

Please explain how. Thank you.

It's the definition. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.

Not as far as I can tell.

Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

My point was about atheism.

[noemon]

And as if all of that was not enough I have repeatedly stated in this thread and other similar threads that my problem is NOT with individuals but with the institution itself. I have said that over and over and over and over and I am getting blue from saying it again. . I cannot reconcile the fact that I have stated my position clearly so many times and that we have had this conversation for over 2 weeks where I have repeatedly said this and you still try to misrepresent me.

First of all you have not been conversing with me for over 2 weeks, second you forgot to include my counter-argument on your 5 billion people claim and its essential irrelevancy.

So this is obviously a deliberate misrepresentation by your part. Honestly I am not surprised, after defending those institutions that advocate for women/child/homosexual abuse among many other depravities it is hard to imagine you could hold a civilized argument after running out of rational arguments. You have to resort to manipulation and misrepresentation.

You have explicitly stated:

I am not seeing any religious folk in here that wants to do any of that stuff, I am seeing you explicitly stating that you want to get rid of religious folk.

Yeah, because they want to get rid of everyone that is not like them? How about they just stay in their magical house and pray to their invisible friend and leave the rest of humanity in peace? Oh no they need to preach their shit back and forth and attempt to control everything, suicide bomb the rest of us, stone/abuse women, indoctrinate children, mutilate children. By your logic those who wanted to eliminate nazi germany were dictators...

You are now whinging that I am misrepresenting you, when your own statements are clear as the day, if you regret your statements and wish to retract them by all means do so, but do not pretend that you did not say what you did and that others are putting words in your mouth when in fact I am quoting you verbatim. In contrast you put words in my mouth out of the blue without ever quoting me.

When someone asks you if you want to get rid of religious folk and you say "Yes I do because they are Nazis", it doesn't really leave any room for misrepresentation.

I do not advocate for any kind of violence or killing of anyone PERIOD. I know your religious values are very "open to interpretation" but mines are not. Religion should be eliminated. Elimination means not having it anymore, it does not mean killing. Elimination means educating backward thinking fucktards that think magic beings are real, and when education fails, educate them again and again and again and fucking again. Elimination means use all possible means to stop them from spreading falsehoods to next generations. Yes these people are the ones teaching creationism in some schools in the US as if it was a fact. It means imposing conditions for trade with countries that support sharia law or human right violations in particular on religion basis. The fact that you have to resort to comparisons with the worse humanity has done in the past (WWII, North Korea, etc) to justify religion as reasonable is a clear testament to how barbaric this institution is.

You post the worse theists have done and I post the worse atheists have done, that does not mean that theists have done no good such as charity, social cohesion & ethnic continuity as it does not mean that atheists have not done any good either. But as long as you are screaming the evil of one, I am there to remind you the evil of the other just so you do not lose track of the actual causes of human evil which are evidently irrelevant to religion itself.

You are talking about educating people but you cannot progress this conversation, I have asked you twice if you retract your statement and you still refuse to acknowledge your error, you would rather accuse me for what you said instead of own up to it. And in the end your intention of eliminating religion hinges on eliminating either the religious folk or their right to free speech. You cannot eliminate religion unless you do either of those 2 things or both, so stop pretending please because it is getting ridiculous. You swing from one suggestion to the other like a pendulum hoping that one of them will eventually stick. But both of these routes are quite 'evil' in the end and place those who argue them squarely in the category of those bad theists and atheists that we discussed earlier.

-----------------------------

For unrelated reasons I recently came across the Nobel Prize acceptance speech of the Dalai Lama, I am interested to know what exactly would you like to eliminate from the following extract:

As a Buddhist monk, my concern extends to all members of the human family and, indeed, to all sentient beings who suffer. I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a sense of inner peace and contentment, which in turn must be achieved through the cultivation of altruism, of love and compassion and elimination of ignorance, selfishness and greed.

The problems we face today, violent conflicts, destruction of nature, poverty, hunger, and so on, are human-created problems which can be resolved through human effort, understanding and the development of a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood. We need to cultivate a universal responsibility for one another and the planet we share. Although I have found my own Buddhist religion helpful in generating love and compassion, even for those we consider our enemies, I am convinced that everyone can develop a good heart and a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion.

With the ever-growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play by reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things. This understanding is crucial if we are to take positive and decisive action on the pressing global concern with the environment. I believe all religions pursue the same goals, that of cultivating human goodness and bringing happiness to all human beings. Though the means might appear different the ends are the same.

As we enter the final decade of this century I am optimistic that the ancient values that have sustained mankind are today reaffirming themselves to prepare us for a kinder, happier twenty-first century.

I pray for all of us, oppressor and friend, that together we succeed in building a better world through human understanding and love, and that in doing so we may reduce the pain and suffering of all sentient beings.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's the definition. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.

That is not what I asked. Please reread our conversation and respond to my actual question. Thank you.

My point was about atheism.

[/quote]

That is not what I asked. Please answer the question I asked.

[Besoeker]

That is not what I asked. Please reread our conversation and respond to my actual question. Thank you.

That is not what I asked. Please answer the question I asked.[/quote]
Atheism is the topic. And that's what I addressed. Xog and I agree on that definition even if not much else.

[jakell]

I've taken the morality discussion over to another thread, but here's something that cropped up earlier that does represent a familar arument for atheism/theism (the two tend to draw on the same concepts).

Well the equation is quite simple:
We can also go with Pascals wager... or my position:

What are the chances that such an intricate multiverse was created by pure chance, compared that it was created by a higher plain. Since logic states that something cannot come from nothing, we must conclude that the "prior" to the Big Bang there was something. This something is not nothing, thus we must allow that the something could be sentient thus destroying the atheist position.

Actually, it wasn't intricate to start with, it was a low entropy soup (or is that 'high', I can never remember which? I'm sure you get my point though)

The probability argument is a familiar and often persuasive one, but it doesn't pan out. By the time the Universe has been doing it's thing for aeons given the basic laws of physics, everything will seem improbably intricate, but that's a function of our viewpoint looking back through time.

Your question could then be, "where did the laws of physics come from?", but your use of the term 'multiverse' sort of undermines that.. it leads to the notion that only in our Universe do those particular laws apply, making us feel special (and therefore improbable)

As there were no direct responses I left it at that, but then noemon later came up with:

If it was that easy to undermine the cosmological argument, it would have been done long time ago, you should consult with your link for further details.

I've never seen this labeled before and 'The Cosmological Argument' seems a decent one, it has two components though:

1) The relatively easy one is the complexity/probability one. This one comes up a great deal and is quite persuasive IMO, especially when we talk about life. I actually think that my argument here works, even though it is hard to intuit at first, I would welcome any rebuttal of this.

2) The harder one is where all the basic stuff came from, plus the laws that govern it. Oxymoron gave me an 'in' by using the word 'multiverse', but that was a speculative aside and it's not a very satisfying argument as it raises more questions than it answers. This is the Big-One and where we may need religion to remind us that there will always be limits to our knowledge and that it is wiser to acknowledge this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Atheism is the topic. And that's what I addressed. Xog and I agree on that definition even if not much else.

That is not what I asked. Please answer the question I asked.

Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

[Besoeker]

That is not what I asked. Please answer the question I asked.

Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

I already posted that atheists comr in all shapes, sizes and flavours.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, that is not the question I asked.

Please respond to what I actually wrote. Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

[Besoeker]

Again, that is not the question I asked.

Please respond to what I actually wrote. Do you still think that all atheists have only a lack of belief? Yes or no?

Only?
No. I think they have a whole spectrum of other attributes.